The emancipation of feats and death of PrC's?(long)

[Gold Roger]

For some time now I've been extremely adversial to PrC's. They just never resonated with the rest of 3rd edition to me.


I really feel with the PHB2 is moving away from prestige classes.


There's no mention of them whatsover, the new base classes are non-synergetic with them.

The dragon shaman fills a place many people claim should be PrC and the duskblade actively replaces spellblades and eldritch knights.

Affiliations fill the space of moddeling organizations you can join, gain powers from and advance in.

Many concepts other books would have tried to approach with a PrC have been put into feats.

It promotes alternate class features and often PrC's end up just changing a few class features when it comes down to it.

Some feats actively encourage core class PC's (especially fighters), to stay true to their one class.


Personally I hope I'm right and feel that would be a good thing.

PrC's have stolen the limelight of feats. Currently there are concepts you can only realise with PrC's, but that wouldn't be true if more effort had been put into creating appropiate feats.

Instead feats have been the neglected stepchild of D&D for a long time. Every book at a few loveles and useless ones and everyone took the same core ones, even though feats where supposed to be the #1 tool of customisation.

Many groups don't even have any chars with base class level after level six anymore.

Originally PrC's where a true choice that defined the PC, but not anymore. A paladin that takes a PrC is usually still a paladin, just more specialised (again, shouldn't that be the job of feats?). He will still gain improved smite evil in many cases.

Many PrC's give extra stuff for free. The Radiant Servant of Pelor is a prominent example, as are most arcane full caster progression classes, which have sorcerers only sacrifice some familiar progression (or not even that-see alienist).

Another of my gripes with PrC's is that they demand you to be at least mid level to fill a certain role, even if that role should be quite common for members of that class. Level 7 plus charakters aren't really that plentyful by standart D&D demographics and far rarer by many homebrew demographics.

Want to be a normal guildmage? Come back at level 6. Yeah, we got 30 members in this city, why do you ask?

Want to be a traditional shaman of your people? Those are all level 7 or more, even old Horsefoot over there, who never left his peacefull cave, and for some reason they where all normal generic clerics before.


There's aren't even all of my problems, but I don't want to drop even more into ranting than I already am.


One could claim that PrC's are balanced by their prequisites, but those play into the specialty of the PrC anyway and are often out of line with the PrC's power level.

One could claim PrC's promote in-game bound advancement by being bound to special training and organisation. But how many DMs really play that out to any noticable amount? How many of the DMs and players that do play it out wouldn't be ready to do the same for feats?

One could claim that PrC's can offer abilities that would be overpowered as feats, thanks to level-based progression.

But feats can have prequisites as balancing features as well.

The PHB2 has proven to me that feats can provide huge advantages and still be balanced (weapon supremacy. I don't think it will break any game, but imagine it was the level ten ability of a PrC).

Further, many of these abilities could be broken down into into multiple feats.



PrC's are there to offer greater option? Well so are feats. In fact I feel that many PrC's will reduce my options.

I want to be a good archer, but stay a ranger, so it's true to my PC's style of a rugged wilderness lover?

Won't happen.

You have to take the uberarcher PrC and sacrifice your wilderness abilities. Oh, and you will have to follow a certain flavor for that, and you'll also have to take PrC feature b and d, even though they don't fit your character concept and you only really want feature a and d.


But feat slots are precious few and the choice is already so hard people will say.

I don't think the choice would be so hard if you had more clear choices. I want to do a strong firemage PC you will take the strong firemage PrC and then agonize over the same feats standart mages agonize.

But if I told you there's no PrC for firemages, but a bunch of strong feats for firemages? Not so much of a contest then, eh?

That would especially help newer players and not so rules happy players.

If one of those comes to his DM and wants to play a weather mage, the DM first has to explain PrC's. Then he has to explain why he has to take a ordinary mage for five levels before he can have the char he wants. Then he's given that big list of feats he has no grasp of and will end up making suboptimal choices that propably don't even fit his concept.

With a bunch of appropiate feats the DM could just say, yeah, take a druid and those feats and you're all set to be the disciple of a old school of weather invokers.

Feats are few, that's true. But the character should make choices. Only a character known for his qickness of actions really should take improved initiative and only a weaponmaster fighter should have all the wepon focus and specialisation feats.


I'm not angry that PrC's have defected from their original intend. Most things will go from their original intend. But while they will sometimes take things into a new and exiting direction, they will sometimes just devolve.

I think PC's are slowly running themself dead and it's time to step in and change the games direction.


So, am I all alone on this position? Are there any points of PrC grandness I didn't see? Is my argumentation flawed? Am I just rambling and hoping on a change that won't happen? Or am I on to something?

I'll be happy to discuss this.

 

[frankthedm]

PRCs were an optional part of the 3e ruleset that somehow found thier way into almost every wotc book published.

Most of those who like PRCs over feats want more abilities from each character level than feats give.

 

[Psion]

Some classes need to be feats. Including some core classes. CW Samurai, I am looking at you.

That said, PrCs do things feats can't.

1) I notice that players have a lot easier time digesting new feats since they come in larger, conceptually related packages.
1a) Some classes and prcs give players a means to organize feats easily.
1b) PrCs can represent world and campaign concepts that would not convincingly translate to feat chains.
2) Similarly, some players are not interested in peicing together character abilities level-by-level. One of my favorite martial arts resources is Blood & Fists. It features classes that let you build your character feat by feat. But my player who wanted to play a martial artist just wanted to take a class that gave her what she wanted without a lot of fuss. I think a lot of players are like this.
3) PrC can textrue a campaign setting by representing its organizations and special characters. This gives the GM a tool to influence chargen, which I think is important. Feats are born of the player-choice school of design. AFAIAC, you are best of with both.

That being said, I think I am going to disagree with the premise of the OP.

 

[Gold Roger]

1) I notice that players have a lot easier time digesting new feats since they come in larger, conceptually related packages.

1a) Some classes and prcs give players a means to organize feats easily.

2) Similarly, some players are not interested in peicing together character abilities level-by-level. One of my favorite martial arts resources is Blood & Fists. It features classes that let you build your character feat by feat. But my player who wanted to play a martial artist just wanted to take a class that gave her what she wanted without a lot of fuss. I think a lot of players are like this.

Which is why I ask for clear feat chains/collections for certain feats. That way rulemongers have fun mixing and matching various feats, while the more rule-light people can simply pick a clear featpath. Besides, players have to choose feats one way or another. By puting certain concepts into feat packages that is made much easier.

1b) PrCs can represent world and campaign concepts that would not convincingly translate to feat chains.

Examples?

3) PrC can textrue a campaign setting by representing its organizations and special characters.

Well, as I've said, the new affiliations system manages quite well in modeling organizations (though it can be improved on).

The point on special characters I can support. I can understand that the one in a generation keeper of the silver gate (or whatever) needs his own class. Such PrC's are awefully rare and usually homebrew though.

This gives the GM a tool to influence chargen, which I think is important. Feats are born of the player-choice school of design.

The DM should feel free to dissallow feats just as much as PrC's. Many DMs have as much a problem dissallowing PrCs as they have with feats. Creating custom feats is much faster and easier.

 

[Victim]

Most PCs will get more levels than feats. Therefore abilities that cost a level (ie, PrC abilities) are less expensive than abilities from feats and allow a higher degree of customization.

 

[Psion]

Which is why I ask for clear feat chains/collections for certain feats. That way rulemongers have fun mixing and matching various feats, while the more rule-light people can simply pick a clear featpath. Besides, players have to choose feats one way or another. By puting certain concepts into feat packages that is made much easier.

You present this as a magic solution. But guess what: in the example I was speaking of, that was EXACTLY the situation; Blood and Fist provided a variety of martial arts masteries, that are neatly chained, and she could have just picked one. The player still just wanted a class that doled out abilities.

Fortunately, I had another resource at hand (Beyond Monks) that had the sort of class that gave her what she wanted.

Feats give choice, which is good for some players. Feats require choice, which is not good for some player. By applying it as a one-size fits-all solution, you reduce the breadth of appeal to players, who want different things out of gaming.

Examples?

Where the relationship between the abilities is not based on what they do, but different things that the organization are known for. Feat chains primarily express mechanical linkages, whereas prestige classes express conceptual linkages that may be rooted in backstory elements.

Well, as I've said, the new affiliations system manages quite well in modeling organizations (though it can be improved on).

I really can't comment on this since I don't know what it is.

The point on special characters I can support. I can understand that the one in a generation keeper of the silver gate (or whatever) needs his own class. Such PrC's are awefully rare and usually homebrew though.

Why do they need to be homebrew? I'm busy enough, not to mention that some PrCs are just laden with ideas to spice the campaign up with. I just take the class from a resource and tweak history, mechanics, or both, to fit. It's a lot easier than starting from scratch.

The DM should feel free to dissallow feats just as much as PrC's. Many DMs have as much a problem dissallowing PrCs as they have with feats. Creating custom feats is much faster and easier.

We're obviously coming from different vantage points. Disallowing options has never been a burden for me. I don't come from the standpoint of why they should be excluded. I come from the standpoint of what they offer the game.

 

[MerricB]

Feats, as they are only gained 1/3 levels, are totally unsuited to the type of prestige class that gives abilities every level.

Classes and Prestige Classes also do lots of really interesting things that feats don't.

Cheers!

 

[Nyaricus]

Feats, as they are only gained 1/3 levels, are totally unsuited to the type of prestige class that gives abilities every level.

See, that's why I am giving out feats at every odd level. They are much more lovable now.

Also, I am picky with PrCs, but don't hate them. I can defeinitly feel the OPs pain in this.

 

[The_Gneech]

Feats, as they are only gained 1/3 levels, are totally unsuited to the type of prestige class that gives abilities every level.

Classes and Prestige Classes also do lots of really interesting things that feats don't.

I've got to agree with this! When you're not building a Fighter, feats are rare and precious things and you just can't do that much with them!

-The Gneech

 

[zoroaster100]

I also don't generally like presige classes, and like the direction the PH2 seems to be going. I don't mind there being some few special prestige classes that do things that are not easily accomplished with feat chains. But I think the defaul solution to allowing new abilities should be through base classes, feats and spells/powers. Only when really necessary to a concept should there be a prestige class, and even then great care should be taken that the presitge class is not better than any of the base classes.